Residents of OK town now have to pay to get water out of their own well

Several residents in McLoud are upset after the city announced a $17 water bill for residents who use a well. According to City Manager Larry Dillon, the small fee will help pay for emergency services such as police officers and fire fighters.

Because of an old city ordinance, rural residents with in 100-yards of a water line didn't have to pay for those services; but because of a struggling economy, every dollar counts. If local residents don't want to pay the fee they'll have to connect to the water line. "I know nobody likes to pay extra bills, but it's a reality of life and you have to pay your way because there is no free ride anywhere," said Dillon.

If local residents don't pay the $17 monthly charge or hook up to the water line, city officials will fine them of $20 per day.

Article and Video

Government has no claim to the water in the ground. If they need money for police and fire services, cut expenses somewhere else. Perhaps eliminate a few of the standard "do nothing" jobs all governments have.

[edit on 14-3-2010 by brainwrek]

We have this problem in the UK now, the water companies claim that they own the rights to the water table. If you buy some land and dig a well for watering youre crops on youre land,the water company will make you put a meter on the well. They are also trying to lay claim to rain fall water as well. Their logic is that they have to service all sewage and storm drains. How do i know this? i used to work for a firm that did tunnel boring,cofferdams and deep drainage works. I suppose thats what you get with privatised waterworks

Well, the water is life. Our city a few years back passed a rain tax. You heard right, a rain tax.

Their theory was that they had to build drainage systems to handle runoff.

I am sorry but if anyone know anything. These things are part of the roads. Funded when the roads are built. It is just a joke. They want to tax us not once on something but as many times as they can, before we do something about it.

A bunch of companies here had built into their design of the complexes holding ponds and no water ran off their sites. They were being environmentally kind due to increase water temperatures in rivers and lakes cause increased algae growth so they requested exemptions to the new taxes. NOPE. SORRY.

A house is taxed at $25 per year and then places depending on their square footage of roofs and parking lots.

People. It has nothing to do with anything except money.

When the founders were given a tax increase of .5% increase on a forced purchase of tea, they rebelled. Okay, this was a staged event, but they did something about it.

When are we going to have our tea party.

OH, that is what the Tea Parties are all about.

I thought they were just a bunch of redneck, racist, right wing, birther, terrorists. /S

ENOUGH already. ENOUGH!

my dad once had an argument with a water company in the UK about this subject & he told them if the rain belongs to them then to keep it off his property.

Also, if they own the rain & water then they should pay for all the flood damage

[edit on 14-3-2010 by jimmylad]

reply to post by brainwrek


You think that's bad, Colorado (and other states I presume), owns even the water that falls from the sky. I kid you not:

Question: I have checked my valid well permit and it states that the use of my well is limited to household uses. Can I collect rainwater and snowmelt from my roof and use it to water a very small vegetable garden in the backyard or in a greenhouse? How about for my hot tub?
Answer: No, water for a vegetable garden outside the home or in the greenhouse is not an ordinary household use and it consumes the water in a way that is inconsistent with the permitting statutes. The use of the precipitation in this case is limited to drinking and sanitary uses inside the home. This same answer applies to using the water for a hot tub, it is not allowed in this permitting situation.
Question: Since I’m trying to conserve and cut back on the use from my water supplier, am I allowed to collect precipitation for watering my landscaping and to fill a decorative pond?
Answer: No. First, because you receive your water supply through a tap from a water supplier, you may not collect precipitation at all. The changes in Senate Bill 09-080 apply only to residential properties that are supplied by a well (or could qualify for a well permit). Second, you will not be able to use the precipitation you’ve collected to fill a pond since that use would not be allowed on the appropriate well permits.

co.us Website PDF
Growing food is not a permissible use for rainwater????!!!
And people still don't believe that things have gotten out of hand. In S. Texas, precious water was loaned (sold) to Mexico, landowners deprived, and said water still to be returned.



[edit on 14-3-2010 by 1SawSomeThings]

reply to post by jimmylad


Your Dad sounds like a smart man, use their flawed logic against them.

Also, if they own the rain & water then they should pay for all the flood damage

Awesomesauce!

[edit on 14-3-2010 by 1SawSomeThings]

We live in a world where we must make laws to pay for your safety.

This reeks of tyranny.

reply to post by cosmodromia tis parnasida

I suppose thats what you get with privatised waterworks

You completely miss the point. How can a private company claim positive rights over something universal like rain water, if the government didn't give it permission to? It is typical of governments to administer control over something natural (radio wave frequencies, rivers and lakes, natural resources) and give monopolistic control of it to a crony or financial backer. This is not a privatized system.

This is all a method of control. They exert their monopoly of force to gain control over a naturally occurring utility and use that to sell their constituents out for a few measly campaign donations, and the possibility of an increase in revenue. Politicians first job is to maintain the status quo and then to maintain there own power positions.